> If your goal is to distribute software across multiple distros and operating systems, bundling dependencies makes sense.
Of course, an important "exception to the exception" is when you're making software that can easily be distributed by distributions, e.g. because it's end user software and open source.
I think the optimal cases for bundled dependencies are (a) large closed source binaries that never change, like games, and (b) self-deployed software, e.g. something like a server written in Go that is compiled and maintained in its running environment by a single developer or company.
> is when you're making software that can easily be distributed by distributions, e.g. because it's end user software and open source.
I have trouble understanding why this is desirable for either authors or end users. Even for open source end user applications, I want the software that I'm running to be reflective of the software that was authored and not the software that some distro maintainers think it should be.
> I want the software that I'm running to be reflective of the software that was authored
I don't. As an end-user, I couldn't care less about what the author wanted, I want to run the best possible version of the software. Often that's the version maintained by my distro, as they've put in the effort to make sure all the different software on my system works well together.
Of course, an important "exception to the exception" is when you're making software that can easily be distributed by distributions, e.g. because it's end user software and open source.
I think the optimal cases for bundled dependencies are (a) large closed source binaries that never change, like games, and (b) self-deployed software, e.g. something like a server written in Go that is compiled and maintained in its running environment by a single developer or company.